It is and Logging software has been discussed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Why not just try the Logger demos out yourself and make your own decision on what logger is the greatest. They all have trial periods. Do you really need someone else telling you what to use?

Stan K9IUQ

Sorry to offend you with my thread. I count at least 15 log books just from google alone. I really think it would be pointless to first download all of the trials and go through them when there is a forum of people who have probably tried most of them and may have some educated input. Maybe you have more time then me? Why don't you like DXLab ??What makes it "clunky"?

Sorry to offend you with my thread. I count at least 15 log books just from google alone. I really think it would be pointless to first download all of the trials and go through them when there is a forum of people who have probably tried most of them and may have some educated input. Maybe you have more time then me? Why don't you like DXLab ??What makes it "clunky"?

Nothing offends me, I am an experienced forum poster . I tell the truth as I see it and that does offend many hams.

I do have time, I am retired and in the last couple of years have tried every logger I could find that had a trial. Why don't I like DXLabs? I have been thru that explanation in other threads here, it does not need re-hashing.

DXLabs is popular as seen by all the DXLabs defenders here. Dxlabs is FREE and hams always like free. Free Loggers like DxLabs will always be more popular than Loggers that cost $$. If DXLabs cost $$ it would not be popular as there are several $$ loggers that out log DxLabs.

For me Dxlabs was worth just what I paid for it- zero. For that I am thankful.

Sorry to offend you with my thread. I count at least 15 log books just from google alone. I really think it would be pointless to first download all of the trials and go through them when there is a forum of people who have probably tried most of them and may have some educated input. Maybe you have more time then me? Why don't you like DXLab ??What makes it "clunky"?

Nothing offends me, I am an experienced forum poster . I tell the truth as I see it and that does offend many hams.

I do have time, I am retired and in the last couple of years have tried every logger I could find that had a trial. Why don't I like DXLabs? I have been thru that explanation in other threads here, it does not need re-hashing.

Ok OM GL. Thanks for all your input.

DXLabs is popular as seen by all the DXLabs defenders here. Dxlabs is FREE and hams always like free. Free Loggers like DxLabs will always be more popular than Loggers that cost $$. If DXLabs cost $$ it would not be popular as there are several $$ loggers that out log DxLabs.

For me Dxlabs was worth just what I paid for it- zero. For that I am thankful.

In this thread there are 8 first time posters all singing the same praises for the same exact software. Most shills are a little less obvious.

Interesting is it not? I thought perhaps I was the only one that noticed that. What has surprised me is AA6YQ is not here advertising his baby like he has done in the past on other Logger threads. Perhaps eham told him they were going to charge him advertising rates the next time he got in a logger thread.....

I have said before and will say it again:

Try all the loggers out, they have a free trial. Figure out what works for YOU. Instead of following the Logger Pied Pipers.

Recently, I began looking at various logging/station support programs. I'm almost finished with my trial period of HRD. It took about a day to get everything up and running, and to become comfortable with the program suite. The logbook/dx cluster/rig control/rotor control works very well together. It's basically pick a station off the cluster, the log book prepares to log the contact, make the exchange, and save it in the logbook. A few mouse clicks and it's done. The rotor control program automatically turns the beam towards the intended contact. I haven't experimented with the digital program (DM780), or the satellite tracker. Nevertheless, I have been very happy using HRD.

I also want to look at Commcat as well. I like the fact that Commcat offers an interface for remote operation using Apple "i" products. I suppose, most of these program suites produce the same end results, the real differences is the user interface. DXLabs seems like a one man show, a lot of posters in support of DXLabs kept referencing the same thing over and over, Dave this and Dave that. That is all fine and well, unless he becomes unavailable, then all support will stop.

Recently, I began looking at various logging/station support programs.

Nevertheless, I have been very happy using HRD.

I also want to look at Commcat as well.

That is all fine and well, unless he becomes unavailable, then all support will stop.

I too liked HRD but it is not worth $100 to me. I do have the last free version of HRD but only use DM780. Before that I used Logic ( 8 ) Logger thru many versions, However when they asked for $89 for an update to Logic 9 I said no way and started looking at other , more reasonable priced loggers. I dearly wanted to love DXLabs, I like free too. Free is good. However even after several tries of using of DXLabs I finally decided I did not like the confusing (ugly) interface or all those little programs one has to run.

Commcat is my present logger and has been for over a year. I like it very much.

Becoming "unavailable" is a problem much ham software has. I remember buying Wincap Wizard several years ago. This was an outstanding Propagation program and support was excellent. Unfortunately it was a one man show and the fellow went SK. No more support or updates, and even worse it was a "protected program" and every time you changed computers you had a problem.

HRD seems to have many programmers, which is very good "insurance" for anyone who buys it.

DXLab's modular architecture, its comprehensive documentation, and its non-existent backlog of reported but uncorrected defects have enabled me to make multiple new feature-bearing releases every month for the past 13 years. DXLab's open programmatic interfaces have enabled many developers to build new applications that complement DXLab (e.g. SpotSpy) and enable existing applications to interoperate with DXLab (e.g. MultiPSK). While I'm only 61 and in great health, these characteristics will also enable a smooth transition to the next generation of DXLab developers ~30 years from now.

Contrast this with the difficult and far-longer-than-announced transitions observed in products with monolithic architectures, sparse documentation, and large numbers of reported but long-uncorrected defects.

Contrast this with the difficult and far-longer-than-announced transitions observed in products with monolithic architectures, sparse documentation, and large numbers of reported but long-uncorrected defects.

Since you have worked on it for 13 years I think it is time to develop DXLabs to look like and function like a real Windows program. Heck you can not even maximize the DXLabs windows with the maximize button to fill the screen. Instead you have to stretch them. No Drop down menus. In DXView depending on what you click on, the window changes size to dinky and back to large. It will give you a headache if you do it often. Heaven help you if you use anything like large fonts on your computer. Some of DXLabs will be unreadable.

DxLabs Interface needs a lot of rework.

13 years ain't that long. I remember buying Logic JR at a hamfest on a disk for $20 back around 1991. In fact if my memory serves me correctly the Logic Logger was the first with the adif file. In Fact I think "Hosenose" developed the original adif file. If I am wrong please correct me, my memory ain't what it used to be.

Logic 9 is still around. It is probably the best logger I have ever used if you can afford it.

Since you have worked on it for 13 years I think it is time to develop DXLabs to look like and function like a real Windows program. Heck you can not even maximize the DXLabs windows with the maximize button to fill the screen.

Correct. Since Windows was originally developed ~25 years ago, continuing improvements in display technology and reductions in the cost of RAM have yielded inexpensive high-resolution displays. DXLab exploits this by providing the user with lots of relevant information beyond the usual fare: realtime displays of active DX stations, realtime displays of actual propagation, amplifier and tuner settings for the current frequency, "ham phrase" translations in the languages your current QSO partner is likely to speak, to cite a few. Thus most DXLab users have multiple windows on-screen simultaneously; many have multiple monitors to maintain instant access to the information they consider most useful. If you're more comfortable with one screen displaying one window, that's fine, Stan; you've evidently found an application that suits this preference. But your past criticism that "DXLab provides too many windows" is, as one DXLab user put it, like complaining about a gourmet buffet with too many tasty dishes. DXLab users choose what information they want displayed as a function of their DXing objectives and operating style.

DXLab applications windows are adjustable in appropriate dimensions. For most windows, this adjustment is performed once; each application remembers where and how you've positioned and sized its windows.

Correct. As I've previously pointed out, users consider this a significant step forward in usability. Instead of hunting for cryptically-named commands buried in cryptically-named menus, DXLab applications use tabs with captions relevant to the tasks at hand, like "Log QSOs" and "Check Progress". Adjustments are made via well-labeled graphical controls on these tabs. I understand that you don't like this approach, Stan. What you seemingly fail to understand is that most ops prefer it, as the reviews confirm.

What you mean is "DXLab's Interface needs a lot of rework to gain you as a user". I wouldn't take DXLab backwards to gain 1000 users, Stan, much less to gain the few that share your view. There is far too much new functionality yet to be delivered, and your opinion is that of a shrinking minority.

In DXView depending on what you click on, the window changes size to dinky and back to large. It will give you a headache if you do it often.

That's false.

That is true and I apologize. The program that keeps changing window size is DXKeeper. Instead of bringing a new window up like most Window programs, DxKeeper will change size from dinky to large depending on what you click on. DXKeeper is the main logger window. I am sorry I got it wrong but one must run so many different programs/windows in DXlabs it is difficult to keep track of them all.

What you mean is "DXLab's Interface needs a lot of rework to gain you as a user". I wouldn't take DXLab backwards to gain 1000 users, Stan, much less to gain the few that share your view.

Dave I suggest you can not see the forest because the trees are in the way. Because DxLabs is free you have few users telling you what they really think. Instead they tell you what you want to hear. It is hard to complain about a program when it is free.

DXLAbs is a non-standard windows program. It does not use even simple Windows conventions like drop down menus. DxLabs looks and feels like it was written for Linux or Win 3.1. 13 years ago it might have been to date. In 2013 it just looks dated.

Please take my comments as constructive criticism. Whether DXLabs pleases me is not your concern or mine. There are plenty of loggers that do please me.

You do yourself a big dis-service by constantly promoting and pasting your DXLabs brochure into every Logger thread. If DxLabs is great the ham will find out by himself. All a ham has to do is what I have been promoting, which you seem to disagree with:

You do yourself a big dis-service by constantly promoting and pasting your DXLabs brochure into every Logger thread.

Sorry Dave, but I have to agree with Stan on this one.

I have always been interested in the digital modes and many years ago when PSK31 was the "new kid on the block", I would frequently run across WA2VOS on RTTY and once in a while on PSK31. For those of you who do not recognize the callsign, he is the US representative for MixW software. Even though we started out having "normal" QSOs, the conversation would always turn to how great and how fabulous MixW was and that I should really give it a try. After a while, it just became tiresome talking to him so I just kept spinning the dial or moving somewhere else on the waterfall whenever I would see him.

If that is all he wanted to talk about, then why would I want to continue to talk to him? I checked my log and it has been almost 10 years since he and I last spoke. Even though I have seen his call on the waterfalls from time to time, he is one of the very few people who are on my "black list" of those stations with whom I have no desire to have any more contacts in my log.

At least on the "other forum", Ham Radio Deluxe has a separate sub-forum so perhaps eHam could consider doing the same for you. Unlike MixW, DXLabs is free but the bottom line, advertising is still advertising.

Copyright 2000-2017 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement